WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Wildlife Pictures and Videos Gallery
Wild carnivores and humans compared
Wild carnivores and humans compared
|
Wild carnivores and humans compared
|
 (11-02-2017, 02:08 PM)Apollo Wrote: Here are some pics and a vid showing T28''s height and massive size. Star male crosses the bonnet height. In the images T-28 probably is at a higher ground (see how the Gypsy is tilted). So, tough to say if he actually crosses the bonnet, especially the metal bodywork is 4-5 inches lower at the back than engine compartment.  *This image is copyright of its original author Quote:The confusion occurs when fan boys starts to make absurd claims, especially Kanha fan boys. I've seen few reputed fan boys claiming Uma male to be the biggest. Umarpani, Jai, Bamera... There've been lots of claimant for the crown. People have favourites, even famous people! I thought we'd be past accepting those blindly by now... Quote:In Ranthambore T28 aka star male was considered to be the bigger framed tiger followed closely by T10, Jhumroo, X male, Fateh etc (this group is generally the taller group) and there is T24, dollar male, T57, T58 etc (this group is slightly shorter at the shoulders in general).............Bheem is a very big tiger (taller and longer than Waghdoh and Jai, but less robust than prime waghdoh). Where are you getting these from? Ok..T-28, Khali, Wagdoh are larger than the herd & nobody doubts that. But further comparisons calls for a eye-witness, someone who's seen atleast a few of 'em. Random photos are usually no good. I mean, that's the reason this "Gypsy comparison" started in the first place, to get a common factor... 
Not everyone thinks like you, many newbies fall for this bias trap.
some such reputed fanboys make 300kg as a norm for tigers. Ive seen wild tigers several times in the past. So Im knowledgeable than you think. Ive shared some of the sources, some I didn't share, some doesnt want to be shared. Anyways the front bonnet is not 4-5 inches taller, it may be around 2-3 inches. T28 still appeared several inches taller than the back body of the gypsy. We can't be for certain say the tiger is in a higher ground, the gypsy behind the tiger was in straight ground. The tilt also depends on the angle the video was taken. Also remember the tiger was behind the gypsy giving the gypsy an advantage in height. Well now back to topic Sultan (T72) was a very tall tiger even when he was a subadult. Here is a video of Sultan looking close to a gypsy bonnet. Sultan seems to be in a slight higher ground but at the same time Sultan''s front limbs were bent. 
A few things,
1st Sultan is obviously a large cat but he's still walking on higher ground as you can see when he begins to creep forward, his body lowers significantly and you also never actually get to see him walk in front of any Gypsy. 2nd @Apollo I was not aware of the fact that you have seen wild Tigers, which parks did you go to and when? 3rd In regards to your statements about C. Indian Tigers v Ranth. Tigers All of the people I have spoken with who've seen both don't share the same opinion as you, in fact, the opinion I have heard is that Ranth. Tigers are no larger in frame but are a bit leaner in body type. I believe a couple here who've seen both have said the same, but I can't be certain about that cause I don't remember exactly what they said to a T. 4th In regards to Kanha Tiger size, I have spoken with numerous guides in kanha, and most say Bheema was not larger than Uma, KF, Munna, Sangam, etc. All those males are considered similar in size and none of the guides were willing to put one ahead of the other, they always said they were too close in size to know for sure. But in regards to the deaths of KF and Bheema, most weren't sure but the ones that were more familiar with it thought it was Uma. 5th C. Indian Tiger size v Terai Size I have seen conflicting opinions, Kanwaar says Corbet and Kaziranga, another (I forget her name, she was saying it on the TOK) says Kanha Both have seen all of them and have many experiences in these parks. But the opinion I here most isn't locations it's individuals... I am fairly confident in my opinion at this point, I've spoken to enough people and seen many examples with my own two eyes and if you remove the "fan boy" aspect as you like to say, you come to this conclusion. There is absolutely no way that any one can tell which tiger population is bigger or smaller, taller or longer, it just doesn't work like that. The differences between them are way to minimal to make that assessment, sure you may see a large male and he may be the biggest you've ever seen but I will guarantee you that in that same park and probably even that same zone, there will be another average sized to small sized male walking around. If you choose to say "well, that male is the biggest so this park must have the biggest," that's your prerogative but you will most likely be doing yourself and others a disservice. (11-02-2017, 09:46 PM)Pckts Wrote: If you choose to say "well, that male is the biggest so this park must have the biggest," that's your prerogative but you will most likely be doing yourself and others a disservice. Kindly don't make things up, I never said this. Bias and fanboyism is definitely found in many experts, I was trying to point out that, coz that plays a bad influence. No matter how you twist the words, the differences is still there. There could be many reasons for it. Prey base, environment, genetics etc. Generally northern, northwestern, central, southern tigers genes dont mix creating genetically isolated populations. These isolation can make certain traits more visible. You said that Kanha tigers were more powerfully built than Tadoba and Pench. So when these 3 reserves which are in close proximity with possible interbreeding can produce such difference in built, why not other genetically isolated populations. No one is denying that there will be small and big tigers in all reserves and locations, it's about the general aspect and the differences we are talking about. Just like your take on Kanha. As a Kanha tigers follower you would have come across many saying Munna genes over and over for his offsprings fighting prowess. When genes can transfer that why not size. We all know X male, Jhumroo, Bamboo Ram, Star male are all big framed males (very tall atleast) and tigresses like Lakshmi, Machli, Noor (possibly 170kg+, machli's daughter weighed in 170kg when she was subadult and smaller than Machli) can't they produce big tigers. You spoke about terrain and prey base altering tiger physiology. Then why not drier and more flat open terrain create taller tigers in Ranthambore. Tigerluver once spoke about Kanha tigers having less facial hair and bigger heads than tigers from near by reserves. I once spoke about Ranthambore tigers having more mane like features due to more open terrain. Recent weights from central India shows subadults reaching and surpassing 210-225kg. In Ranthambore T12 as a subadult weighed 220kg, T24 as a subadult weighed 240kg (injured and unhealthy). So T24 as an adult could have weighed atleast 15 to 25 kgs more, putting him around 255kg to 265kg. We know that T28, T25, T42 etc were all bigger than T24. But for your sake let's put them to be around same size. Then as you say the more robust and bulky tigers from central India should weigh around 280-300kgs.If these cats were similar in frame (height and length) that's what will happen. Where is this big weights are coming when they are leaner. No one will say 170kg tigresses and 260kg males to be LEAN unless they have big frames. Think about it. Yes people have different opinions I agree. Some people say a tiger is bigger due to its robust built. Others will say a tiger is bigger due to its bigger frame. But generally many fall for the optical illusion of big heads, short musclar bodies giving a more robust and powerful appearance. Regarding KF and Bheema death, yes there is no 100% concrete evidence but just a possible theory, I personally expect that theory to be reasonable which I will discuss later at tiger directory. Now instead of continue arguing, let's post some central indian tiger vids showing close to gypsy bonnet (no long range shots). I personally want to thank @Rishi for sharing that 115cm height info. It's a very important info. Edit Peter once made a nice post on Southern, central and northern tiger difference on height and length compared to lions based on many data and info. It was a nice read. (11-03-2017, 01:31 AM)Apollo Wrote:(11-02-2017, 09:46 PM)Pckts Wrote: If you choose to say "well, that male is the biggest so this park must have the biggest," that's your prerogative but you will most likely be doing yourself and others a disservice. I just wrote my responses in the your message above. Other than that I agree.  (11-03-2017, 01:51 AM)Pckts Wrote: The same study also show a Male that was 170kg and two females @143kg and 134kg Sariska relocated tiger T-10 was weighed 220kg at age of 4. In THIS article (July, 2009) he was mentioned as, i quote: "Though they did not weigh it this time, Dr. Nigam told me that the tiger must be weighing about 250 kg. At the time of its release to the park, the animal weighed less than 180 kg.". Even Ustad weight temporarily fell to 170 kg after his capture, & i believe T-12 had experienced the same. (11-03-2017, 06:14 AM)Rishi Wrote:(11-03-2017, 01:51 AM)Pckts Wrote: The same study also show a Male that was 170kg and two females @143kg and 134kg The tiger in the picture looks small, no way is that one 250kg. I’m aware about Ustad, but remember his weight was also mentioned as less than 215kg when he was captured as well then much less once he got sick again. T12 was weighed on the same day as t-44 as well, I see no reason for him to be to that low comparatively. I also just spoke with someone who has seen Waghdoh, Shivaji, ryakassi and kaziranga Tigers, he said he thought the Tigers in kaziranga were a bit larger as well. He thinks the size of prey and the easier hunting makes them larger. I think kaziranga will definitely be on my list next time I go back to India. (11-03-2017, 07:30 PM)Pckts Wrote: In THIS article...The article's tiger is probably a representative image, they usually are... Now, this is the 220kg ST-1 aka T-10...makes sense.  *This image is copyright of its original author And, this is "170kg" ST-4 aka T-12...(image is shit but authentic sighting)  *This image is copyright of its original author Unless there is a significant difference in dimensions, it's near impossible that ST-4 was lighter. HERE'S a video of him...
I’m curious what that article has to do with the T-12 male who was 170kg and captured in 2010?
My point wasn’t that ranthambhore has small Tigers, my point was that their tigers seem to be a bit more lean overall comparatively. That doesn’t mean that all of their tigers are smaller or larger in frame, they have a wide range like anywhere else. Edit: you keep adding on to the post so I need to adjust my response haha I agree, but if we are to scrutinize the weight of 170kg than we must scrutinize all the weights throughout the project. It’s always the issue with this scientific approach, that’s why I’ve grown to prefer eye witness accounts, I find them more reliable to be honest, they don’t knitpick over “gorged or not” or “curves or straight line” or “laying on their side or head lifted,” they just tell you which seem larger or smaller.
When viewing tigers in the forest it's hard to judge it's height and length coz there is nothing to scale them with. But robustness and bulkiness can be judged without a scale.
The problem starts here, for a general viewer a bulky but smaller framed tiger will appear bigger than a slightly leaner larger framed tiger. I would say instead of arguing let's post some videos from central India showing tigers near gypsy bonnets. That will give us a clear picture on the shoulder height department. I'm yet to see males crossing the gypsy head light (metal body below the bonnet) in the front or the metal body work in the back of the gypsy in central India. Regarding T12 weight I think it could be a type or print error. T12 is a very large framed tiger. Here is a video of T12 which explains my point, when the tiger is in the woods it appears to be an average lean tiger. But when T12 comes close to the gypsy bonnet we can see his immense shere size. @Rishi Thanks for the T12 Sariska video. (11-03-2017, 08:46 PM)Pckts Wrote: I’m curious what that article has to do with the T-12 male who was 170kg and captured in 2010? The article is 2months before T12 got sent to Sariska. The tiger it mentions was 220kg-T10 (not in image) & said his weight fell below 180kg during the relocation but now can be as high as 250kg. I thought same might have been with T12 when he was weight 170kg, so i shared it as a reference. Quote:My point wasn’t that ranthambhore has small Tigers, my point was that their tigers seem to be a bit more lean overall comparatively. That doesn’t mean that all of their tigers are smaller or larger in frame, they have a wide range like anywhere else. Agreed. Also, weight isn't static...Between young-old-summer-winter-injury-recovery, a single tiger's weight probably fluctuates 50lbs. I doubt we can put a number on each tiger so easily.
A rescued tigress being released back in the mangroves...
 *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 16 Guest(s) |